Article

Effects of increasing level of supplemental barley on forage intake, digestibility, and ruminal fermentation in steers fed medium-quality grass hay.

Department of Animal and Range Sciences, North Dakota State University, Fargo 58105, USA.
Journal of Animal Science (Impact Factor: 2.09). 12/2004; 82(12):3662-8.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Objectives of this research were to evaluate effects of increasing level of barley supplementation on forage intake, digestibility, and ruminal fermentation in beef steers fed medium-quality forage. Four crossbred ruminally cannulated steers (average initial BW = 200 +/- 10 kg) were used in a 4 x 4 Latin square design. Chopped (5 cm) grass hay (10% CP) was offered ad libitum with one of four supplements. Supplements included 0, 0.8, 1.6, or 2.4 kg of barley (DM basis) and were fed in two equal portions at 0700 and 1600. Supplements were fed at levels to provide for equal intake of supplemental protein with the addition of soybean meal. Forage intake (kg and g/kg BW) decreased linearly (P < 0.01), and total intake increased linearly (P < 0.03) with increasing level of barley supplementation. Digestible OM intake (g/kg BW) increased linearly (P < 0.01) with increasing level of barley supplementation; however, the majority of this response was observed with 0.8 kg of barley supplementation. Treatments had only minor effects on ruminal pH, with decreases occurring at 15 h after feeding in steers receiving 2.4 kg of barley supplementation. Total-tract digestibility of DM, OM, NDF, and CP were increased (P < 0.04) with barley supplementation; however, ADF digestibility was decreased by 1.6 and 2.4 kg of barley supplementation compared with controls. Ruminal ammonia concentrations decreased linearly (P < 0.01) at 1 through 15 h after feeding. Total ruminal VFA concentrations were not altered by dietary treatments. Ruminal proportions of acetate and butyrate decreased (P < 0.10) in response to supplementation. Rate, lag, and extent (72 h) of in situ forage degradability were unaffected by treatment. Generally, these data are interpreted to indicate that increasing levels of barley supplementation decrease forage intake, increase DM, OM, and NDF digestibility, and indicate alteration of the ruminal environment and fermentation patterns.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
56 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this experiment was to evaluate the effect of feeding different levels of enset corm as a supplement to sheep fed Rhodes grass hay. Thirty local yearling rams with a mean (±SD) body weight of 16.97 (±1.13) kg were used. Six sheep were allocated to each of the five treatments in a completely randomized design. The treatments were hay ad libitum and 129 g dry matter (DM) corm (T1), 188 g DM corm (T2), 248 g DM corm (T3), 100 g DM noug (T4) cake, and hay alone (T5). One hundred grams of noug seedcake was supplemented for all treatments except T5. Total DM and organic matter (OM) intakes of sheep in T1, T2, and T3 were the highest (P < 0.05) compared with sheep in other treatments, while sheep in T5 consumed the lowest DM and OM. The total crude protein (CP) intakes of sheep in T3 and T2 were greater (P < 0.05) than the other treatments, while sheep in T5 consumed the lowest CP. The apparent DM and OM digestibility coefficients of T1, T2, and T3 diets were higher (P < 0.05) compared with T5. The lowest (P < 0.05) CP digestibility was in T5, whereas the digestibility among the supplemented groups was similar (P > 0.05). The daily body weight gain for T1, T2, and T3 diets was greater (P < 0.05) than that of T5. The feed conversion efficiency for T1 and T2 was higher (P < 0.05) than T5, while T4 had an intermediate value. The highest (P < 0.05) nitrogen retention was in sheep fed T3 diet, while the lowest was in those fed T5. It is concluded that farmers can supplement enset corm at 129 g DM/day as an alternative energy source to improve the productivity of sheep for small-scale farmers under enset-livestock production systems.
    Tropical Animal Health and Production 04/2014; · 1.09 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The objective of this paper was to review recent studies on nutrient synchrony and the effects of synchronization of energy and N supply in the rumen on nitrogen utilization and animal performance. Theoretically, synchronization of energy and N supply in the rumen should allow more efficient use of nutrients by rumen microbes, increase microbial protein and fermentation end products, and thus increase available nutrients in the small intestine. Efficient use of nutrients possibly improves animal performance and reduces nutrient excretion to the environment. However, a number of studies showed contradictory results in microbial protein synthesis, nitrogen retention and animal production performance. Since there are additional challenges to nutrient synchrony that must be addressed, further research is required to apply the nutrient synchrony concept directly to the field situation.
    Asian Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 01/2010; 23(7). · 0.64 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A 2×2 factorial design with 32 Hereford bulls with an initial live weight (LW) of 307kg was used to study the effects of (1) concentrate type and (2) concentrate feeding intensity on animal performance and health in cold conditions. The experiment included periods P1 (140d) and P2 (on average 87d) and consisted of two types of concentrate during P1–P2 (farm-made concentrate mixture, F; commercial compound, C) and two intensities of concentrate feeding pre slaughter during P2 (restricted, R; adlibitum, A). Concentrate was offered on average 2.3kg dry matter (DM)/d during P1. During P2, concentrate was offered 3.0kg DM/d on diet R and ad libitum on diet A. Grass silage (GS) was offered ad libitum.The proportion of concentrate in the daily DM intake was 0.29, 0.44, 0.29 and 0.50 during the entire experiment for diets FR, FA, CR and CA, respectively. On average, the intake of GS was lower on diet A than on diet R (P
    Livestock Science - LIVEST SCI. 01/2010; 127(2):227-237.